-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ServiceBus Topic Authorization Rules #736
ServiceBus Topic Authorization Rules #736
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hey @scottrangerio
Thanks for this PR - apologies for the delay in reviewing it!
I've taken a look through and left some comments in-line, but this mostly LGTM. If we can fix up the highlighted issues and rebase this - we should be able to kick of the tests and merge this :)
Thanks!
|
||
if resp.StatusCode != http.StatusOK { | ||
return fmt.Errorf("Error issuing Azure ARM delete request of ServiceBus Topic Authorization Rule '%s': %+v", name, err) | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
checking the SDK here, the method above can return either a 200 or a 204 - can we change this to:
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("Error issuing Azure ARM delete request of ServiceBus Topic Authorization Rule %q (Resource Group %q): %+v", name, resGroup, err)
}
Creates a new ServiceBus Topic authorization Rule within a ServiceBus Topic. | ||
--- | ||
|
||
# azurerm\_servicebus\_topic\_authorization\_rule |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we remove the \
here? they're not needed
} | ||
|
||
resource "azurerm_servicebus_topic_authorization_rule" "test" { | ||
name = "navi" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could we make this examplerule
?
Hey @tombuildsstuff No worries about the delay, it's nice to see the amount of activity this repo is gaining :) I've made said changes and rebased on top of master (first time using rebase so I hope I've done it right?). Any other issues just let me know and I'll try my best to resolve them. Cheers! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hey @scottrangerio
Thanks for pushing those changes - I've taken another look through and this now LGTM 👍
I'll kick of the test suite now.
Thanks!
👋 hey @scottrangerio Just to let you know that support for this has just been released in v1.2.0 of the AzureRM Provider - full details of what's included are available here: https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/blob/v1.2.0/CHANGELOG.md#120-march-02-2018 Thanks! |
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks! |
Hey all o/
This PR addresses #735
Tests pass and output can be seen here https://gist.github.com/scottrangerio/501719dd8b5cd7f2915a5350690cd237
Also tested manually using the following .tf file
https://gist.github.com/scottrangerio/37fa55911682cdd1e32f8905c9e68c33
This is a near complete copy of the eventhub_authorization_rule resource, just tweaked for servicebus topics
Documentation still needs doing, but I'm happy to tackle that at some point next week when I get a bit more time!